¶ 1 This Court issued an opinion in this case on May 6, 1997. By that opinion the Court affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Oklahoma County in favor of Aircraft Equipment Company on its petition for a creditor’s bill to satisfy an earlier — affirmed money judgment against the Kiowa Tribe. Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 1997 OK 62, 939 P.2d 1143. The Tribe sought certiorari.
*451¶ 2 On June 8, 1998 the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States mailed to the Clerk of this Court a file-stamped copy of the following order:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for further consideration in light of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 [118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981] (1998).
Upon reconsideration we overrule our earlier opinion and remand to the trial court.
¶ 3 The present case arose out of a post-judgment action in state court, initiated by Aircraft Equipment Company to satisfy a money judgment against the Kiowa Tribe for default on a note. The first action, in which Aircraft obtained a money judgment, had earlier been affirmed by this Court. Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 921 P.2d 359 (Okla.1996) (hereinafter Aircraft I). Then Aircraft brought this second action seeking equitable relief in the form of a creditor’s bill, in order to satisfy the money judgment, which this Court affirmed in its opinion referred to in the opening paragraph above (hereinafter Aircraft II). It is this second action that is before us now on remand from the United States Supreme Court.
f 4 In Aircraft II, 939 P.2d at 1145, the Tribe asked that the money judgment and the creditor’s relief be reversed on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity. But this Court noted that the money judgment had already been affirmed, and reasoned that a state court which has authority to render a judgment also has the authority to enforce the judgment. Id. at 1148.
¶ 5 After the opinion in Aircraft II the United States Supreme Court decided Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998), revisiting the concept of Indian tribal immunity from suit. There, the High Court held that “[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Id. at 1702. The Court further noted that thus far, no distinction has been drawn as to whether the activity is commercial or governmental. Id. Although the Court noted certain circumstances in which a state may apply its substantive law, the Court concluded that this does not always include the right to enforce a judgment:
In Potawatomi [Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991)], for example, we reaffirmed that while Oklahoma may tax cigarette sales by a Tribe’s store to nonmembers, the Tribe enjoys immunity from a suit to collect unpaid state taxes. There is a difference between the right to demand compliance with-state laws and the means available to enforce them.
Id. at 1702 (citations omitted). The reason for this is because “tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States.” Id. at 1702. Enforcement of such a judgment could result in the state’s diminution of tribal immunity.
¶ 6 This recent Supreme Court decision dictates that this Court’s opinion in Aircraft II be overruled. We so hold. The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of the District Court. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court we in turn remand the cause to the District Court of Oklahoma County with instructions to enter judgment for the Tribe on Aircraft Equipment Company’s petition for a creditor’s bill.
¶ 7 KAUGER, C. J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, JJ. — concur. ¶ 8 HODGES, J., concurs in deference to mandate of Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751,118 S.Ct. 1700,140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). ¶ 9 WATT, J. — concurs by reason of stare decisis. ¶ 10 HARGRAVE, J. — concurs in result. ¶ 11 WILSON, J. — dissents and is joined by OPALA, J.